Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anil Vishwanath Meshram, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 2nd July 1992 by Shantiniketan Shikshan Sanstha and Avinash High School. His services were terminated by notice dated 9th March 1995 with effect from 3rd May 1995. He filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, which was dismissed. The petitioner then approached the Bombay High Court. The employer contended that the petitioner was not qualified as he held B.Com. and B.P.Ed., which is not equivalent to B.Ed., and that his appointment was not approved. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal partly because the petitioner applied for the post of Laboratory Attendant after termination, indicating acquiescence. The High Court held that B.P.Ed. is not equivalent to B.Ed. and that the petitioner was not qualified to be an Assistant Teacher. However, the court noted that applying for a lower post in an era of unemployment does not amount to acquiescence. Despite this, the court found that the petitioner lacked the requisite qualification and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Teacher Qualification - B.P.Ed. vs B.Ed. - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The court held that B.P.Ed. is a qualification for Physical Training Instructor and not equivalent to B.Ed., which is required for appointment as an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner's application for the post of Laboratory Attendant after termination did not amount to acquiescence to the employer's contention of lack of qualification. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who held B.P.Ed. qualification, was qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher and whether the School Tribunal erred in dismissing his appeal based on his application for a lower post.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the School Tribunal's decision that the petitioner was not qualified to be an Assistant Teacher as B.P.Ed. is not equivalent to B.Ed.
Law Points
- B.P.Ed. is not equivalent to B.Ed.
- Teacher must possess prescribed qualification for appointment
- Acquiescence by applying for lower post does not waive right to challenge termination
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 300
Writ Petition No. 235 of 2003
Shri H.A. Deshpande h/f. Shri H.K. Pande for Petitioner; Shri D.B. Patel, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1; Shri D.C. Chahande for Respondents No.2 & 3
Anil S/o. Vishwanath Meshram
The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur; Shantiniketan Shikshan Sanstha, Kamptee; Avinash High School, Kamptee; Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal against termination of his service as a teacher.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the School Tribunal's judgment and challenge his termination.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's services were terminated by notice dated 9th March 1995, and his appeal to the School Tribunal was dismissed.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal against termination.
Issues
Whether the petitioner was qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher with B.P.Ed. qualification?
Whether the petitioner's application for the post of Laboratory Attendant amounted to acquiescence to the employer's contention of lack of qualification?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that applying for a lower post in an era of unemployment does not amount to acquiescence and cannot be decisive of qualification.
Respondent's counsel argued that B.P.Ed. is not equivalent to B.Ed. and the petitioner was not qualified as an Assistant Teacher.
Ratio Decidendi
B.P.Ed. is a qualification for Physical Training Instructor and not equivalent to B.Ed., which is required for appointment as an Assistant Teacher. Applying for a lower post after termination does not constitute acquiescence to the employer's contention of lack of qualification.
Judgment Excerpts
As held by this Court on a number of occasions B.P.Ed. is a qualification prescribed for Physical Training Instructor and not for regular teacher.
In the era of unemployment a person may seek any job available and that cannot be decisive of the fact whether the petitioner was qualified or not.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed on 2nd July 1992, terminated on 9th March 1995, filed an appeal before the School Tribunal which was dismissed, and then filed the present writ petition in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977:
